This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
According to alarmist “theory”, yes the air should warm more and more rapidly than the surface, but it doesn’t and hasn’t.
I commented to that effect on RealClimate more than a decade ago, but Gavin said nothing. But that was in the pre-Twitter Late Stone Age.
…there’s no asphalt in the upper troposphere
…no air conditioning exhausts, either.
I commented to that effect on RealClimate
============================
I asked the same thing and was bore-holed.
The divergence between the surface temps and the satellite temps is undeniable proof that the warming cannot be due to AGW-GHG theory. In any other branch of science this would be a failed theory.
However, there is nothing scientists hate more than to be proven to be wrong. They will fight to the grave to maintain their failed theory. And thus science advances one funeral at a time.
It is comedy gold in here tonight! “And thus science advances, one funeral at a time”! That has to be put on the WUWT classics list.
Lysenko lived to see his downfall, y’all…
“Lysenko lived to see his downfall, y’all…”
So did Charles Davenport.
“there is nothing scientists hate more than to be proven to be wrong. ”
Yes, certainly for climate ‘scientists’. They always seem to demonstrate a smug glee when they can announce ‘the hottest year ever!”. The absolute last thing they want is to be proven that climate change isn’t a problem after all.
Paul Ehrlich is still venerated for his failed Pop Bomb theory, despite Progressive disappointment that half of humanity didn’t die off by the 1980s as he predicted. I think what’s really going on is that they believe its still true. Except for a few minor details like when, why, by how much, and in which direction we would be experiencing “population change”. It doesn’t really matter, as long as it eventually wipes out huge swaths of humanity, which they’re counting on the weather to do for them now since we stubbornly refuse to do it to ourselves.
FTFY “They will fight to
the gravetheir retirement to maintain their failed theory.”“there is nothing scientists hate more than to be proven to be wrong.” This goes double for pseudo-scientists working fiendishly and fervently to protect their industry. After all, they have invested their careers and their egos in it.
A good example is Galileo. He refused to admit that he was wrong about his pet theory of “Perfect Circles”. Even to the point of believing that comets were an optical illusion. Because he wouldn’t admit the Perfect Circle theory was wrong, how could a comet’s highly elliptical orbit be a real thing? Even the much revered, “father of science” was susceptible to irrational scientific pride.
Aphan – it’s a quote from Max Planck.
Abe! I don’t get you most of the time, man, but, LOVE THIS one and you deserve a little recognition for your fervent, sincere, heart-in-the-right-place, sometimes indecipherable, but, often insightful comments:
Amen!
#(:))
P.S. But… don’t be rude to Aphan anymore — that only makes you look bad, Mr. Abe (and Abraham Lincoln frowns down upon you from above and mutters, “Going to sue that boy for character assassination if he does that again.”)
“magical heateristical hotterism ”
+~10,000
My most favorable review to date.
Abe, I had no idea the Mars atmosphere was so dense. It puts the warmists “Mars Like” meme in the garbage basket (together with the rest of them).
Nice Abe- just used your “Heateristical hotterism”
Thus again, the temperature at ground level in a system with fixed volume is regulated by gravity – which doesn’t change on a scale with markings as fine as the entirety of erect humanoids.
Abe,
Great screed.
For reference:
Venus: Average surface atmospheric pressure 93 bar, CO2 concentration 96.5%.
Earth: ASAP 1.0 bar; CO2 .04%.
Mars: ASAP 0.006 bar, CO2 95.97%.
Even Screamin’ Jim’s fellow alarmists are embarrassed by his fevered “Venus Express” fantasy.
Gloateus,
There’s a misconception about how GHG’s work which leads to this idea and many of the other flaws in alarmist ‘theory’.
GHG molecules do not heat the atmosphere which then heats the surface, its the other way around. While collisional broadening does result in the probability that upon collision a lower frequency photon is emitted and a small amount of energy is added to the kinetic energy of the GHG molecule and it speeds up, the probability of re-emission at a higher frequency that slows down the molecule is equal and the net effect on the kinetic temperature of all GHG molecules (i.e. their velocity) is zero.
The surface is heated when photons in the absorption band flux passing between GHG molecules are absorbed by the surface rather than another GHG molecule or leaving the planet. The resulting heat of the surface then heats the gases in the atmosphere as they collide with the surface.
The flux of photons passing between GHG molecules can be absorbed by dust and the water in clouds, but matter in LTE is absorbing the same amount of energy that it’s emitting and the resulting water temperature increase is very small. The LTE effect this has on the temperature of the atmosphere is even smaller when amortized over its entirety and is somewhere between unmeasurable and insignificant.
https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0
I have played that clip to everyone I have argued with and it has stopped the discussion in its tracks.
Bet that doesn’t get played at the movable fest of warmists.
C S Lewis wrote in The Discarded Image, Chapter II Reservations :
I think it would be fair to say that the ease with which scientific theory assumes the dignity and rigidity of fact varies inversely with the individual’s scientific education.
Great C. S. Lewis quote, Mr. DaSilva. It reminded me of what I read recently in one of Lewis’ letters in vol. III of his collected letters (Hooper, editor) to Chicago American chief editorial writer, Dan Tucker:
As from Magdalene College,
Cambridge
8 Dec 1959
Dear Mr. Tucker —
Thank you for your most interesting letter of the 3d. The devil about trying to write satire now-a-days is that reality constantly outstrips you. Ought we to be surprised at the approach of ‘scientocracy’? In every age those who wish to be our master, if they have any sense, secure our obedience by offering deliverance from our dominant fear. When we fear wizards the Medicine Man can rule the whole tribe. When we fear a stronger tribe our best warrior becomes King. When all the world fears Hell the Church becomes a theocracy. ‘Give up your freedom and I will make you safe’ is, age after age, the terrible offer. …
Yours sincerely
C.S. Lewis
Sorry folks but that meme has been debunked. Here is the abstract of a paper whose authors include John Christy.
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf
That’s a 2006 paper. See Christy et al 2010, or McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014 (the latter looking at 55 years of balloon data).
Any links to those papers for us poor, wretched, creatures who no longer have access to an academic library?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2294/abstract
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148/pdf
(The first paper is really only for those into stats… not that I understand half the thing)
McKitrick and Vogelsang are economists, not climatologists.
As for the 2010 paper, the title says it all.
“What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?”
It is a comparison of observed and measured trends to previous model projected trends.
Did anyone actually read it or read beyond the abstract? Maybe you take Alberto at his word. Alberto could be a fine upstanding citizen who may visit animal shelters to pet sick kittens but just because a person says something and posts a link to some material, it doesn’t mean that the referenced material is going to support their ideology.
We shan’t speak of outdated information. This blog is full of outdated information mainly because there is no current data to support the contrarian view although careful misquotation and lack of opinion article readers conducting any fact checking by actually reading and understanding the referenced material (when there is referenced material and when that referenced material is not another opinion article blog post whether here or elsewhere on the web) can have the effect of creating sufficient doubt in readers minds.
This blog post is not even an article, it’s a snippet from Twitter that someone slapped a headline on and called themselves an author. Even the author has no relevant background in climatology or related fields. The twitter account for which questions are being asked does not even reveal a real name. The scientist has his name out there and likely receives death threats to himself and family everyday because of that fact just like so many other climate scientists receive daily. That is the group you all belong to, people using anonymity to threaten peoples lives for conducting scientific research and publishing the data, welcome back to the dark ages!
Matt
Quite a bit of projection going on there! See, EVERY statement you’ve just made, every crime you have just exaggerated and complained about being made, HAS BEEN DONE. But it HAS BEEN DONE BY CAGW religious fanatics, scared literally to death by your own propaganda. it is your religious faith in CAGW extremism that IS killing people.
Matt
December 15, 2015 at 6:54 am
“McKitrick and Vogelsang are economists, not climatologists.”
They are obviously far better at analyzing statistics than a climastrologist fraud like Mann.
Thanks, Alberto.
Ah, the drive-by alarmist commentator! Throw in an alleged debunking grenade into the fray and hope it destroys the whole works. If only the referenced study actually “debunked” what they think it debunks!
Sorry Luke, You are out dated !!!
You don’t get why most of us come here. This embarrassing lack of a hot spot makes it a prime target for the team to dig up a ratioonale or find a way to properly ‘homogenize’ the recalcitrant data.
The dreaded “PAUSE” was obviously a terminal illness for the CO2 control nob CAGW theory. It literally was responsible for debilitating clinical psychological depression striking down numerous CAGW proponents, most of whom seem to have stopped publishing. A much feted butterfly ecologist was among those taken out of action by the epidemic.
Now, as you would expect, this was grandly spun. They explained that fighting for the planet and not being able to convince the world that the end was nigh was what brought them down. Their enablers, kool aid psychologists, supported this diagnosis. This has to be malpractice as classic d*Nile is one of the few solid diags in this corrupted social science. The researchers minds were refusing to acknowledge a scary message from the brain about the meaning of the PAUSE.
It ain’t good news to know that your career has been a waste of time. That your contribution has been a negative one. The d*nyle makes you sick (this remarkable property of the brain should be the subject of scientific and philosophical study). Spin doctors went into a frenzy. They found over 60 reasons for the “PAUSE” that permitted clinging to the knob including that the PAUSE could last 17yrs without needing revamp of the theory. Almost 19yrs was reached and you know what they did. They tomkarleized the temperature data.
If only every accountant that tickled the till could go back and “develop” a new set of ledgers it would eliminate fraud.
If only every accountant that tickled the till could go back and “program” a new set of ledgers it would eliminate fraud.
Every time I see “Luke” comment I think of “Abraham, Martin and John” – NOT Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as some might … Luke just isn’t in their league, few are:
Why the screen name? Certainly not “Cool Hand Luke”.
Thanks for the comments Luke. Every one of them gives me hope, but probably not for the reasons you might expect.
…at least he knows where he can find the truth… once he’s willing to accept it.
Let’s see, though John Christy was a lead author of that summary, he is but one skeptic, and there are no others on this panel, so a skeptical opinion will not likely be expressed in that summary. Tom Wigley is the convening lead author of it, and Carl Mears and Ben Santer are lead authors as well as Christy. As for this assertion that,
“This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”
see this peer-reviewed paper, (1) which states
“Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the
data sets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting
from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radio-
sonde observations. These findings indicate that the recon-
ciliation of differences between surface and satellite data sets
[Karl et al., 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a
suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.”
See also, as Alberto suggested, Christy et al. 2010 or McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014.
Also, just by looking at a comparison of RSS, UAH, and GISTEMP and HADCRUT4, we see that their most certainly still is a discrepancy, at least from June of 1997:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.42/plot/gistemp/from:1997.42/plot/gistemp/from:1997.42/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.42/trend
Christy is but one skeptic, and there are no other skeptics as authors of that summary. Tom Wigley, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer are also listed as authors of it, so do you think that with 3 alarmists, 3 people I am not sure about, and 1 skeptic, the skeptic will get his opinion put in there prominently? Anyway, this peer-reviewed paper reviews the report and comes to the opposite conclusion:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011841/epdf
Also, as Alberto said, read Christy et al. 2010 and McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014, though the age of a paper doesn’t falsify it.
Luke,
Now that I’ve read your link, I have a one-word response: baloney.
They say:
Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.
Really? Then why can’t they quantify those claimed changes? What they show is their model results:
The range of model results for global average temperature reflects the influence of the mid- to high-latitudes where amplification results vary considerably between models.
So even their models don’t agree with each other.
And then there’s the inevitable appeal to authority:
state-of-the-art model simulations from 19 institutions…
This has been repeatedly predicted here for several years: sooner or later, government bureaucrats will begin to fabricate model-based “evidence” purporting to show that global warming has been chugging along as always. It really never stopped, see?
If you believe that, then you’re the kind of sucker they’re trying to convince. So now they have models, radiosonde balloons, and satellite data. The models don’t agree with satellites or radiosonde balloons, which corroborate each other. Which do you believe? The models? Or the balloon and satellite data?
The planet has debunked the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. But there’s big money behind that scam, so what do they do? They lie, simple as that. Because there are always credulous chumps who believe what the government says.
The government wouldn’t lie for money… would it? ☺
…but just to tax us more. That doesn’t count, does it?
Luke, why did Gavin acknowledge the divergence in his tweet?
Gavin didn’t acknowledge any divergence. He said theory said X should warm more.
The explanation is that the data measurements of X are wrong. Gavin did not rule out that explanation.
Gavin DID acknowledge the divergence quite clearly, by explaining and not denying 7kiwi’s assertion.
7kiwi: How do you explain the divergence …
Gavin: different parts of the system…
“This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”
How convenient!
“This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”
The pure, distilled essence of climate science – change the data.
I do not get the quote. Currently Both RSS and UAH show 1998 as easily the warmest year on record.
And then in 2011 HadCRUT3 was made obsolete and HadCRUT4 was embraced. 1998 wasn’t the warmest year evah any more, 2010 is now, 2005 is the second and 1998 the third, In one year 1998 went form being the warmest year ever to being the third one.
And Phil got a peer reviewed paper out or it. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf
Usually the defense at this point for the modellers consists of showing model projections with massive, massive error bars. So an anomaly of 0.2 over a 1979 baseline is consistent with the models, and an anomaly of 1.5 is also consistent with the models. While this may make statistical sense, anyone with a brain can infer that if this is indeed the confidence interval then model projections are essentially meaningless – only the tiniest warming, or an outright temp decline (since 1979!) is ruled out by the models. And skeptics are accused of manufacturing doubt?
(Hosted at ATTP’s blog but actually posted by Gavin on twitter. It also shows that the three satellite datasets, plus a revision of UAH, show pretty much the same trend – despite much anxiety about one or other dataset trending cold or warm).
Of course even this comparison is meaningless because the models can tune parameters until they get a reasonable fit between projections and observations. The most obvious is aerosols, where great uncertainty allows modellers to plug in whatever figures they prefer.
Actually the baseline is 1979-1988 but you get the point: zero warming by 2011 was ‘consistent with’ the models. Warming of 1ºC the same year was… consistent with the models, too.
Pretty big problem when the trend itself is 1ºC/century.
Thanks for that graph. In my opinion, it is astonishing how well the satellite datasets fit together, and, as you say, it helps dispel some of those anxieties about problems with UAH or RSS.
The satellite data also closely tracks radiosondes. Christy usually plots both observational datasets in his CMIP5 model comparisons.
Indeed, and, as NASA reminded us way back in 1990, satellite monitoring of at least the “upper atmosphere” is “more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963
“Structural uncertanties”, see how things fall apart, when Hansen was working, the science was settled.
Luke, what flavor was the Koolaid you drank?
Like he could remember that lololol.
Come now, that is no way to treat someone who disagrees with you. We give ourselves a bad name with comments such as these. That report, understandably, could lead him to the conclusion that the differences between the satellite and surface datasets have been resolved (though that is not the case; see my other comment.)
Oh, justanother, that was kind of you, however…, you must be new around here.
Welcome!
Luke is a known troll.
He is not genuinely interested in learning — he has demonstrated that MANY times. Believe me — the most knowledgeable and patient WUWT commenters have tried and tried and tried. No one could be that stupid. It is obvious, now, that he is not here to learn, just to promote AGW.
Don’t worry — we (if I may be so bold as to say “we”) don’t treat people trying to understand, even sort of obnoxious people.
As for Luke, lol, we’ve got his number, heh, heh, heh.
We just keep refuting him (scornfully! HAHAHAH) to prevent him from misleading other readers.
Keep on posting, Just! Your comments above are great!
Janice
Thank you, I am new ’round here, as one might say, and I do understand your frustration, as I have had somewhat similar experiences with a fellow called “Harry Twinotter” over at JoNova’s blog. Now, I will try, of course, to be patient but I don’t blame you being so frustrated. Thank you for your quick response, I suppose it is just that I wish that I could help them (that is, those that are unreasonable in their discussions) become more reasonable, perhaps to actually even consider what we say, but alas, that doesn’t seem too likely.
Well, Hi, justanother 🙂
Thank you for that understanding. I am one of the WORST for getting sucked into a troll’s tricks… for just that reason: my heart goes out to the poor, befuddled, soul and I want to help them and THEN!!! Then, I see what they are and I get annoyed and start to really lay into them and I should just ignore them (and I’m getting better) — but I don’t!
And sometimes, a mod will come along and whisper in my ear, “psst, Janice… that is just a sockpuppet…. ” (or the like), lolol.
It is GOOD, however, to refute them to a point — they put out such “almost true,” slimy, junk science, that they could easily fool an uninformed reader. I think… the trolls’ main purpose (leaving aside our loyal opposition ones, lol) is to prevent the AGW cult members who come here looking for answers from being persuaded by the scientists and engineers who SOUNDLY destroy AGW day after day… .
Well, again, happy commenting and glad you are here!
Janice
Thank you, once again, for your warm welcome, and I do hope for (and believe that I will have) happy commenting here.
fyi- Harry Twinotter has popped up here, as well.
I suspect that whenever he shows up anywhere it turns into an unfortunate situation for anyone involved.
justanotherpersonii:
You say
Parsimony strongly suggests those “differences” derive from this: the frequent ‘adjustments’ to the surface datasets alter most of their data most months.
At very least, the amorphous nature of the surface datasets is sufficient explanation for the “differences” you mention.
For a more complete explanation of the matter please read Appendix B of this.
Richard
I will not comment on what causes this divergence but your explanation seems viable and not too far out of the question. I too, have wondered why many datasets-not just GISS-seem to have been constanly adjusted upwards, sometimes so drastically as to change a cooling trend to a warming trend! (1)
However, there may be many reasons for such a divergence, such as that there may be problems with the surface or satellite data (I am not referring to the adjustments here).
(1): http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.9/trend/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.9/to:2014.42/trend
justanotherpersonii:
Yes, I was aware of that divergence which you summarise as the two linear trends in your link.
I again suggest you may find it useful to read Appendix B of this.
The underlying problem is that there is no agreed definition of global surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) and if there were then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for it. Hence, GASTA cannot be measured and can only – at best – be estimated while the used definition of GASTA is unique to each team (e.g. GISS, HadCRU, etc.) that provides a GASTA time series and each team alters its used definition most months.
Richard
Interesting remark, and you may find it interesting to read this peer-reviewed paper on that topic: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf.
Unfortunately, when I wrote my last comment, I hadn’t time to read your Appendix, but I shall now.
I read your Appendix (and a short piece of what was above) and while I don’t think the surface data sets are “worthless”, you make some good points (though the discrepancy between many of the data sets seems to have been resolved: http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php).
justanotherpersonii:
Thanks for your link to Essex et al. (2006). As happens I had read it (Ross sent me a pre-print before publication). It is good.
Your other link is to SkS and, therefore, I trust you will understand my not wasting time on it.
Richard
While I am one to be nearly as untrusting of SkS as you are, the same data can be plotted at WFT. It is simply a trend calculator, nothing more. No claims, no falsehoods, save for the stuff on the top, left, and right.
it\\the stuff jim jones had his followers drink was called flavor-ade…not koolade.
If you are referring to the Jim Jones party, most accounts say the flavor was grape and the brand was Flavor-Aid. The drink the Kool-aid phrase evolved due to the use of the genericized brand name being equated with drinks of that sort. The Jonestown people had used both brands in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid
Flavour was not important. But it was colder than they serve it today!
And isn’t it all beside the point?
1) Anthropogenic CO2’s contribution to the atmospheric concentration in amongst the natural stores & fluxes is trivial not that anyone can measure any of it accurately & confidently in the first place.
2) The 1750 to 2011 additional CO2 RF of 2 W/m^2 (watt is power not energy) is totally lost in the magnitude and uncertainties of the climate energy/power flux balance. The 2 W/m^2 imbalance could rebalance from radiation to reflection to absorption, i.e. more clouds, warmer oceans, and hardly anyone would notice. I found a rather interesting balance diagram, Bing images, by Trenberth et al 2011 w/ 8 opinions for each of the various major state points. Lots of +/- uncertainty orders of magnitude larger than 2 and obvious non-consensus.
3) The GCMs are, by and large, expensive yet abysmal failures.
I fully agree about the errors. The alarmists purport to do complicated CO2 balances and energy balances (both kinds with many sources and sinks) with an accuracy better than 1%. I have always suspected that these folks knew less about dealing with errors than the average first year engineering student.
Warmists can’t do engineering; you have to show your homework and there are consequences to being wrong.
You sure got that right, cB. Climate modelers know absolutely nothing about error analysis.
They haven’t the training to evaluate the accuracy of their own models.
Engineers are the BEST!
#(:))
(well, the 3 men I care about most in the world are engineers — and those on WUWT consistently exhibit remarkably disciplined minds, excellent, highly logical, reasoning and arguments using rock-solid real-world principles and data — oh, yes, dear engineers, I remember who many of you are.)
Say…
@ all engineer commenters: Cite your professional credentials more often! (and all of you Ph.D.’s, etc…) It really does add weight to your opinions, here when you are commenting in your area of expertise. And engineers, even when not commenting in their area of expertise, are KNOWN for being especially careful with what they claim is so.
I read your article with great delight.
Dear God in Heaven!
Forty some years ago, one of my buddies was a pioneer in the numerical modelling of water bodies. I guarantee that his models were evaluated against physical reality. Of course he was an engineer and his models were used for engineering purposes. 🙂
The GCMs are, by and large, expensive yet abysmal failures.
==========================
not if you are getting paid to run them! in that case they are better referred to as “college education for the kids”.
Janice – my wife and my best friend’s wife used to post engineering jokes on our refrigerators just to remind us that without our wives we would be missing our social skills…
http://engineerchic.com/category/engineer-joke-of-the-week/
On behalf of engineering grads from Texas A&M, “No Aggie Joakes”
Dear Mr. Delbeke,
Lol. Thank you for that. I feel a tiny bit sad, though, thinking about the underlying feelings (and maybe not really conscious at the time of writing it) that prompted the author of that joke. Engineers ARE super bright…
… and they are also often laughed at and misunderstood by people who couldn’t pass half their coursework. Sure, their social skills are often a bit too blunt, their language abilities are not always the best (but, so what, I say — they are GREAT at succinct, pithy, summaries and tightly logical reasoning!), etc…, but, they usually have tender, caring hearts. A caring heart needs a lot of protection (a.k.a. abrupt, stern-faced, speech and demeanor) or it gets hurt (there are a few engineers who are just jerks, of course — but, you find that in EVERY area of study).
Engineers get lots of ignorant (but, still hurtful, all the same — weird how that can be so) remarks tossed at them from high school friends like, “You were SO SMART — I thought you’d become a doctor or a lawyer or something.” Sigh. We know, O Engineers of the World, those of us who went to college with you. We know that you were among the smartest people we ever met.
And, I realize that, for the most part, you are secure in yourself and don’t need my encouraging here, but…. deep down inside, sometimes…. you do (not from me necessarily! I mean from someone at all).
Best wishes for many more years laughing together with your partner for life!
Janice Moore
School of Business and Economics (for the most part)
AND PROUD OF IT (loloolololoololol)
One of the oldest, but best engineer jokes and by engineers.
3 engineers sitting in a pub discussing all the affairs and problems of the world! One is a mechanical engineer, one is an electrical/control engineer, and the other is a civil engineer. The subject discussed turns to God and the Creation.
They agree that God must be an engineer but disagree on which discipline of engineer. The mechanical engineer says, “Just look at all those moving joints, sinews and muscles in tension and the skeleton structural framework! God must be a mechanical engineer!”
The electrical engineer disagrees, ” Look at all those communication and signal links in nerves, the whole range of sensors, the motive effort and power from muscles and the memory storage and control systems within the brain. God must be an electrical/control engineer!”
The civil engineer disagrees, “God must be a civil engineer. Who else would route a waste transport and removal system through a recreational area?”
@Alan Robertson:
Why no Aggie jokes?
I’m a UC Davis “Cal Aggies” grad… (there are other aggies in the world…) and they are most of the jokes I know…
Cal Aggies “Where the men are Men, and the sheep are scared”
(UCD started life as the Cal Berkeley Agricultural extension, so we like to “remind” them that they are not the only “Cal”.. but they are slow learners 🙂
An engineer dies and reports to the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter checks his dossier and, not seeing his name there, accidentally sends him to Hell.
It doesn’t take long before the engineer becomes rather dissatisfied with the level of comfort in Hell. He soon begins to design and build improvements. Shortly thereafter, Hell has air conditioning, flush toilets and escalators. Needless to say, the engineer is a pretty popular guy.
One day, God calls Satan and says: “So, how are things in Hell?” Satan replies: “Hey, things are going great. We’ve got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators. And there’s no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next.”
“What!” God exclaims: “You’ve got an engineer? That’s a mistake – he should never have been sent to Hell. Send him back to me.”
“Not a chance,” Satan replies: “I like having an engineer on the staff, and I’m keeping him!”
God insists: “Send him back or I’ll sue.”
Satan laughs uproariously and answers: “Yeah, right! And where are YOU going to get a lawyer? “
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Translation : Gavin’s GISS temp land-based data set measures “different parts of the system [UHI effected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”
And at GISS’s core is Hansen’s GHCN, made up of imaginary numbers assigned to weather stations no longer in operation.
And at GISS’s core is Hansen’s worthless GHCN, assigning imaginary data for weather stations long since abandoned.
It’s ok. Paris fixed everything. At least until the blackmailers up the ante.
Above referenced PDF from NOAA, which appears to be from 2005 based on data shown, says on page 11, (and called out in right margin)”
“A potentially serious inconsistency has
been identified in the tropics. The favored explanation for this is
residual error in the observations, but the issue is still open.”
Why is it always that data that is wrong? Never the models.
“………Why is it always that data that is wrong? Never the models……..”
Because they learned this ploy from economists.
I’m an economist by training. Economists frequently find fault with econometric models and often dispute them. Please do not smear Economists with climate “science” standards.
GOVERMENTS fiddle with the data, which drives Economists up the wall, as they then have to keep correcting the gov approved numbers back to the original basis for time series work. For example, Reagan had the basis of inflation stats changed to dampen COLA growth. Now any time series has to be fixed for that discontinuity for accurate work. It causes no end of grief to Economists who would much rather that goverments kept just one accurate time series of data.
See: http://www.shadowstats.com/ for example.
An old joke illustrates the tendency of Economists to point out weakness in each others position (and by extension, models built on them):
“If you lay all the economists in the world, end to end,
you still could not reach a conclusion!”
(5) Amplification means that temperatures show larger changes aloft than at the surface. In the tropics, on monthly and inter-annual time scales, both models and observations show amplification of temperature variability in the troposphere relative to the surface. This ampli- fication is of similar magnitude in models and observations. For multi-decadal trends, models show the same amplification that is seen on shorter time scales. THE MAJORITY OF THE MOST RECENT OBSERVED DATA SETS, HOWEVER, DO NOT SHOW THIS AMPLIFICATION.
This is from the report you linked to Luke. (last line capitalization mine)
Theory? We don’t need no stinkin’ theory.
Gee, just guessing, but is it possible that unusually high solar activity / UV has heated the upper layers of the ocean, causing surface heating but leaving the troposphere cold?
+1
Over 90 percent of solar UV is absorbed in the stratosphere. See Ozone. The absorbed energy does heat the stratosphere directly. The rest is mostly absorbed at the surface. Some UV is absorbed by near surface aerosols, such as those over forests, producing some ozone there.
Solar energy output is nearly constant, the only way the Earth can change temperature is by changing the net reflected energy, aka “Albedo”
It could be the Karl et al (2015) “Pausebusters” paper that warmed the ocean but left both the land and troposphere cold.
The divergence seems to have happened with the lessening of solar activity. Before this century the satellite data and surface data tracked pretty well.
Bw, solar energy (TSI) is fairly constant, but solar WL flux is much greater. Until you can tell me the disparate residence time of each different wave length of insolation reaching the ocean surface, and calulate the difference in total energy absorbed over multiple weak or strong solar cycles, plus explain or explain away any solar influences on cloud formation and or her streams, I cannot accept your albedo assertion.
Maybe here is a clue to the coming new paradigm shift:
From: GRL
AGU Geophysical Research Letter
Holger Schmithüsen,
Justus Notholt,
Gert König-Langlo,
Peter Lemke,
Thomas Jung
First published: 14 December 2015
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL066749
which explains why Antarctica shows no warming.
I guess they have to come up with reason why Antarctic has not been getting with the AGW/climate change program after two recent studies showed Antarctica, including the western ice shelf, are gaining mass.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/abstract?campaign=wlytk-41855.5282060185
And this is happening despite the fact that a recent seismic survey indicates that there is more volcanic activity under the western shelf than previously thought.
sciencetech/article-3354758/Scientists-create-stunning-map-s-Antarctic-say-mysterious-volcanic-hot-zones-recently-active.html#ixzz3tx2Uony5
So now it is time to quickly make up something to account for the fact that what is actually happening in the Antarctic is quite the opposite of what so many other previous studies had claimed. It is a never ending cycle of covering tracks. No different than the 60 excuses for the pause really except this is just the beginning for this round.
Good points, ferd berple and rah (STAY SAFE ON THE ROAD, RAH — still praying for you daily).
Guess they will ALSO need to come up with a bunch of “look, over there, a shiny new windmill!!) junk science to explain away just how VERY LARGE Antarctica is!
And, of course, even so — CO2 emissions UP. WARMING STOPPED. Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!
Game Over.
We can add this to Judith Curry’s list of Pink Flamingos. As far as I can tell, a Pink Flamingo is similar to the elephant-in-the-room. It’s a problem that folks ignore but shouldn’t. link
This reminds me of an Upton Sinclair quote:
The Pink Flamingos and elephants-in-the-room will continue to be ignored.
Solar energy output is NOT CONSTANT at all. Even ‘small’ changes have big side effects.
The solution is simple: put Gavin in charge of adjustments to satellite data.
Peter, do you have a reference for the 20% global number?
Yep.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D21102, 2009
doi:10.1029/2009JD011841
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere
Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
An amplification factor of 1.2 means layers high above are supposed to warm 20% faster than the surface. That’s a global average, in the tropics it’s more like 40% according to computational climate models. Observations indicate otherwise.
BTW, the state of affairs described in the paper used to be valid in 2008. The divergence got much worse during the past 7 years.
Thank you Sir, much appreciated.
“If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.
When us kids would miss behave my mother would hammer the kitchen table with a yardstick. She had the most well behaved table.
And if you don’t have a table, get hammered.
+10
Bruce….you always make me laugh or smile. Thanks for that! 🙂
I spend most Saturday nights hammered and under the table.
I was wondering who that was, there were so many shoes in the way I couldn’t make out your face…And I sure wasn’t going to give up MY SAFE SPACE under MY table to go look !!! LOL
Bruce Cobb — and if you don’t have a table, get hammered — nice one, Eugene WR Gallun
If you torture the data long and hard enough, it will confess to anything ! It’s called ” The Schmidt Effect “, first developed in 1930’s Germany !!
I thought the effect’s name was spelled without the c, m, and d.
That’s the American English version !! LOL
Is there a site where you can view these photos which are taken every 2 hours? Even the Hurricane/typhoon satellite photos don’t update every 2 hours – more like at least every 3 hours, or more…
You probably already know this but, all images at:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Unfortunately, the web site seems to update only once per day. The images actually are pretty nice, and the magnifier is a neat little tool.
I would bet if enough people showed interest, the EPIC team could be cajoled into updating the website as the images come in. As far as keeping track of a hurricane, you only get perhaps 2 images per day, as the world turns.
Tony, thank for that
to track storms et.al use –
• Interactive map of earth showing – winds, temps, ocean currents, pollution & more.
(This is the same data used for world weather forecasting)
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-0.44,60.01,408
Click on – ‘earth’ for parameters (e.g. for Jet Streams height =250
Click on ‘globe’ & drag to rotate;
Click on ‘globe’ – green spot gives – Position, Wind direction & speed, Temperature.
Click on ‘about’ for more details.
Temperature colour key for surface layer.
Blue = 0 to-30°C, Red = -30 to -60°C
Green = 0 to +10°C, yellow/green = +10 to +20°C, Brown = +20 to +60°C
How to use the EARTH map video – http://tinyurl.com/qa6xgvc 6 mins
Jump to –
Arctic – http://tinyurl.com/pjx29ke
Antarctic – http://tinyurl.com/q3fpotv
North Hemisphere Jet streams & temperature – http://tinyurl.com/om2nnl6
North Atlantic currents – http://tinyurl.com/qghcyop
Thanks, no I didn’t know where to find these images…
Just heard on NPR that Russia expects a credit for the CO2 sunk by their forests. Well, let’s extrapolate that little strategy. How about a credit for the extraneous CO2 sources they eliminate? A popular method currently practiced in many of those developing nations. They don’t need more money, just more guns.
OMG.. Canada is going to be rich !!
Marcus – except for one little detail. Canada asked for credits for their forests some time ago and were denied on the basis that boreal forests might actually be net CO2 emitters. And then that darn OCO2 satellite actually showed it might even be true …
I have followed this for a while. From another discussion:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old news from about 2005 – boreal forests may be net emitters of CO2 rather than sinks – and you put your finger on it about forest litter.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/boreal-forests-found-to-be-net-ghg-emitters.html
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/11/11greenwire-interior-west-forests-on-verge-of-becoming-net-78105.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-AP-pine-beetle.html
“It took about five years for Canada to give up on the idea of getting credit for forests. Let’s hope that it doesn’t take as long for those who are still promoting simplistic solutions to the carbon problem to accept what the science is telling them.”
See here—-> http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/11/02/trouble-with-the-trees/
Boreal forests contain about 5 times as much CO2 as the vegetation.
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL31432.pdf
OCO2-1year-co2-globalmap
http://i59.tinypic.com/152kmk4.jpg
(Thanks to Erik Swenson)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So now what?
BEST answer – who knows? Politics is so unpredictable.
The US has been reforesting for the last fifty years — Eugene WR Gallun
The above map of the world showing CO2 blobs have the biggest by far being over the Atlantic Ocean! 🙂
emsnews – must be all the emissions from the volcanoes around Iceland ,, 😉
Structural uncertainty? I’ve not heard that terminology in all of my coursework or professional experience. Is that like structured water? LOL
https://www.shef.ac.uk/chebs/research/themes/structural-uncertainty
(Almost 3 years ago you were asked: ‘How many screen names are you using?’. You are on at least your 15th name. Per site policy, please use the name you started commenting with. Also, when posting a link please add a few words of explanation. -mod)
No, no, the more people who post as anonymous idiots and post links without explanations, the fewer distractions there are for me because I rarely click on those links.
As an Iron worker ( steel walker ) , I am very much aware of ” Structural Uncertainty ” ! If a steel connection only has one bolt holding it instead of five, that is a ” Structural Uncertainty “. Until you put the other four bolts in, I ain’t walking on it !!
The trop, as I see it, is warming faster than the surface. The problem is with the overblown surface trends, biased by microsite HSE and cemented in place by the homogenization adjustment.
According to the Modis satellites, the November average Land temperature was just 0.03C above the 2001-2010 Base period.
While in GISTemp, the average Land temperature was 0.427C above the 2001-2010 average. So, Gavin is just running a temp series designed to exaggerate the warming.
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD_LSTAD_M
http://s1.postimg.org/gl71soxbj/Nov_15_Surface_Temp_Satellite_0_03_2001_2010_ba.jpg
…while infilling over fifty percent of the data!
Gavin and company are highly skilled yabutologists.
They can face-down any fatal flaw in AGW with endless yabuts.
Yabut this, yabut that.
Yabut here, yabut there, yabut everywhere.
Next time you engage an alarmists, (or a lefty on any topic) tell them to stop yabuting.
Perfect example of alarmist view on the data
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/radiosonde-atmospheric-temperature-products-accessing-climate
RATPCAC-A is the one you want:
ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
… make that RATPAC-A …
Here’s a summary of the global data:
a: pressure level (mbar)
b: temperature trend 1958-2015 (through November) (K/decade)
Brandon,
Thank you for the link to useful data. I averaged the upper and lower halves of the troposphere and got this graph:
http://s12.postimg.org/m7bzpfr99/RATPAC.png
And average trends since 1970 of 0.18 K/decade (lower) and 0.13 K/decade (upper).
The trend since 1998 is not robust (surprise!) but in honor of this forum it is 0.21 K/decade lower and 0.12 K/decade upper.
But hey, those dirty “scientists” probably tampered with it. Better stick with RSS.
Ratpac-A is the same NCDC-adjusted data that all the other upwards adjusted NCDC datasets are.
Where is the raw data?
Answer: You have to go to another agency such as RSS or UAH to get it or some other agency like this one.
http://www.sparc-climate.org/data-center/data-access/reference-climatologies/randels-climatologies/temperature-trends/
Nothing happening in the raw Ratpac data
ftp://sparc-ftp1.ceda.ac.uk/sparc/ref_clim/randel/temp_trend/ratpac.ascii
Bill Illis,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006169/full
Figure 1 compares the raw to adjusted. Show me the upward adjustment.
Jon Keller,
Thanks for your nice graph.
Eh? Here’s what I get for trends using your endpoints (plus 1979-2004 for discussion further down) and pressure level bins (K/decade):
Pres Lvl 1970-2015 1998-2015 1979-2004 -------- -------- -------- -------- surf-700 0.18 0.17 0.12 500-200 0.20 0.15 0.11 150-30 -0.39 -0.17 -0.66So, ever so slightly more upper tropo warming than lower since 1970, ever so slightly less since 1998.
Same endpoints, pressure bins as in the published data:
Pres Lvl 1970-2015 1998-2015 1979-2004 -------- -------- -------- -------- 1000 0.17 0.20 0.13 850 0.18 0.14 0.14 700 0.18 0.16 0.11 500 0.18 0.19 0.10 400 0.22 0.21 0.15 300 0.23 0.15 0.16 250 0.20 0.12 0.13 200 0.14 0.07 0.03 150 0.03 0.03 -0.07 100 -0.22 -0.19 -0.37 70 -0.63 -0.26 -0.98 50 -0.61 -0.26 -0.97 30 -0.54 -0.20 -0.91Plot of above data, subbing pressure level with altitude in km based on a standard atmosphere:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rgGRw3GZqN0/VnBiqxSngtI/AAAAAAAAAgE/Qb_cVR0At9I/s1600/RATPAC-A%2BTemperature%2BTrends%2Bby%2BAltitude.png
I added the 1979-2004 interval because the paper I cited above for Bill contains a plot with the decadal trend error estimates for that time period (Fig. 5). The error starts at ~0.05 K/decade at the surface and trends down to 0.03 K/decade at the 150 mbar level. If those errors are similar for the 1970-2015 interval, then the difference between the surface and the 400-300 mbar levels would seem robust for the past 35 years.
Brandon,
I double checked my results and I can’t find where the discrepancy might be. I was also unable to reproduce 0.2 K/decade warming at 250 mb. Here is what I got for upper tropo:
Linear model Poly1:f(x) = p1*x + p2
Coefficients:
p1 = 0.01339
p2 = -26.5
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 1.54
R-square: 0.4855
Adjusted R-square: 0.4738
And for 250 mb specifically:
Coefficients:p1 = 0.01018
p2 = -20.14
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 1.663
R-square: 0.3356
Adjusted R-square: 0.3205
I am forced to assume that you are altering your numbers to fit the warmunanist narrative, because the idea of you engaging in that kind of behavior fits my narrative rather nicely. So it must be true!
Hey, any chance you can update this post with a link to the conversation so we can quickly like, retweet, or reply?
And good on @7Kiwi!
.. LOL , I tried that months ago , Gavin blocked me within 5 minutes , as I’m sure 7Kiwi has found out !! He only wants comments that stroke his immature ego !!
You’re killing it today Marcus..you’ve made me chuckle more than once! The safe place thing was hilarious, but now that you brought up Gavin and then used the word stroke, I’m suddenly nauseous and have a disturbing desire to boil my eyes in bleach….:P
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/676512503199899648
Well said.
You know the odd things there is not even agreement on what ‘industrial’ means in practice, the idea that there was little industry before the industrial revolution, the date for this also being far from clear , does not stand to any historical investigation. Where modern industries are in practice far cleaner than early ones .
You might like the following post — it basically reiterates Feynman — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/a-climate-treaty-based-on-a-failed-model-a-victory-for-the-political-class/
“ClimateofGavin”
Hmm… does that imply ownership on his part?
The day NASA goes to the White House and says “we were mistaken” is the day things change. Any bets on when that might be?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The day NASA goes to the White House the conversation will be more like “Um….they caught us….now what do we do?” and nothing will change.
Monday, January 23, 2017
“scortcher” ? That extra hundredth of a degree is a real zinger.
Now that the Paris conference is over, perhaps NASA has gone back to telling the truth, or at least less outright lies.
“Heateristical hotterism” is my new favorite phrase thanks to Abe!
Contrary to the tweet, it is only the satellite trend that diverges from the surface trend, the trend in the balloon data is very similar to the surface trend: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
Even Mears (RSS) says the surface data are more reliable: i.e. less structural uncertainty. And if anyone doesn’t trust surface data because of adjustments, then they should be even less trusting of satellite data:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html#more
Read: http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf
Tamino is in there too with a wrong analyses see:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
No. The tweet was correct.
Back in February the UK Met Office was fairly sure there was a pause….
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/variations-rate-global-warming
Anyway researchers got stuck in and studied 15,000 years of simulated [!] climate change. and what ho chaps…….they “discovered” that you could get 20 year periods of cooling once every 100 years due to “natural variability”.
It seems that back in February they hadn’t come up with the idea to re-adjust older records [to coolerize them I suppose] in order to evaporate the “hiatus”…or the Met office hadn’t been told about the new approach
The real question is whether the earth will retain this heat or let it go again once the El Nino subsides. I cant see any wins for AGW either way. If the earth stays warm and its another step increase then the models are essentially falsified because they dont predict step warming as a result of ENSO and if the temperature falls again then…well it falls again and the hiatus continues.
Can,t see it hotting up in stratosphere any time soon. Not while humidity keeps falling anyways coz. No water = no ghg effect. At ground level the day max is higher and night mins lower…. Still zero, naught, Nada, zip, FA to do with CO2, just more like desert than tropical climes.
Its is useful to review that one of things that cam out of climategate was that although in public climate ‘scientists’ where making great claims of ‘settled science ‘ in private they [were] openly talking about the problems their theory had . Gavin is merely reflecting that issue years later , which suggest that in that time the theory as not become more ‘settled ‘ but is still ‘problematic’ , which may be because like the rest of ‘the Team’ his efforts have gone into defending the indefensible , rather than actually working on improving the science.
Still the pay cheques are rolling in and his landing a nice job, has Hansen’s hand-picked replacement, where he do further work ensuring the data remains ‘correctly adjusted’ so why should he give a dam . I wish him a long life , so he gets to see his and friends work held up has bad science and poor joke .
Nothing is a problem for the AGW theory as long as dissenters in the media can be sent on the appropriate re-education courses.
This from a paper published 4/2015 by B. Santer , with G. Schmidt as a co-author:
Paper Title “Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature”
“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures show slower warming since 1998. Possible explanations for this “warming hiatus” include internal climate variability, external cooling influences, and observational errors,”… “Our analysis uses satellite measurements of changes in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) made by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites. Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast, global-mean trends estimated from surface thermometer records can be biased by spatially- and temporally non-random coverage changes”
So here the authors, Mr. Schmidt included recognize the warming hiatus post 1998, and recognize the satellite data as superior.
The paper itself tries to tie the hiatus to volcanic cooling, however after stripping out volcanic cooling effects, and El Nino from the satellite data, there is virtually no warming trend since 1995. See figure 1 , Page 22.
Link to full article..https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
Coming back to the original post and Luke’s misunderstanding (or disinformation), the lack of amplified tropospheric warming does indeed remain an unexplained discrepancy. Santer (among others) fought off this conclusion for a long time, but eventually even he had to admit it was true (especially after Syukuro Manabe, (one the godfathers of climate modelling) weighed in, saying “While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep‐layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades” (2011, Fu, Manabe, and Johanson, GRL).
Santer was forced to admit that the discrepancy remained, saying that “agreement between models, theory, and observations within the troposphere is uncertain over 1979 to 2003 and nonexistent above 300 hPa” (Thorne, et.al,A quantification of uncertainties in historical tropical tropospheric temperature trends from radiosondes, JGR, 2011). The more recent work by McKitrick as noted upthread shows this discrepancy between models, theory and observations continues, which is why Gavin has so little to say about it.
Gavin probably wouldn’t like this graph:
He likes his data sets tamperatured and cherry-picked.
The 2015 “scorcher” statement by Gavin is laughable -being both alarmist as well as a red herring. His version of; “Look! Squirrel!”
pdfs at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/quarc/Thorne-2011.pdf
What do you think are the biggest unknowns about future climate change? Where are the biggest surprises likely to come from?
Gavin Schmidt: :we are anticipating “unknown unknowns”. But, of course, they’re unknown, so you don’t know what they’re going to be. So, things where we don’t have a really solid basis – exactly what’s going to happen to clouds, exactly what’s going to happen to some of the extreme events that have the biggest impression on society and ecosystems – and we’re pushing things in a way that all of those systems are going to be affected – some will be affected more than we expect and some less – but I don’t know which!
which settles it……….
John Bils, what a strange quote. Since when does a scientist push things in a particular direction?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt
Could this clip from a Chris Farley film be sort of what Gavin is going through?
https://youtu.be/PQkGn9AI8ms
7kiwi posed a question with that last post. I’m guessing holding my breath waiting for an answer from Gavin would be a bad idea. although Gavin would applaud the move as a reduction in my carbon footprint.